Choosing to Believe?

Do we choose to believe in God? Do we choose not to believe? In one sense, beliefs are not under our control. I cannot, strictly speaking, choose to believe something. In the philosophy classes I teach, I often discuss the nature of belief with my students, and point out our lack of direct control over our beliefs.

For example, if I tell you that I will pay you $1,000 if you sincerely believe that a pink elephant is flying outside your window right now, you cannot do it. You can say you believe it, you can even want to believe it because you'd like the extra cash, but you cannot in fact will yourself to believe it. Why not? Because there is no evidence for the claim, and a mountain of evidence against it.

This applies to religious belief and the lack of it in the following way. One's parents, culture, and society may apply various pressures to have particular religious beliefs (or not), but in my view authentic belief is not produced in this way. Authentic belief is influenced by many things, such as environmental factors, but what is most important is our view of the available evidence for or against a belief. In this way, we have indirect control over our beliefs (what philosophers call "indirect doxastic voluntarism"--we like fancy names for things).

This means that while I cannot directly control whether or not I believe in God, I can control it indirectly by taking stock of the best arguments and evidence on each side of the issue. In this way, I can indirectly choose what to believe, insofar as I make a good faith effort at understanding and evaluating the best available evidence. Then, as a rational being, I follow the evidence. Our choice, then, is to do our best to seek out the truth, wherever that leads us.

Truth, however, poses a problem for the naturalist. The notion of true belief is more at home in a theistic world rather than a naturalistic/atheistic one. Here's why. If our origins and our current cognitive abilities are completely explained by Darwinian processes, then we have reason to doubt the reliability of those processes for producing true beliefs. This is because natural selection does not select for true belief, but rather for behavior that is conducive to survival and reproduction. But there are many sets of beliefs and desires that will yield behavior that is conducive to survival and reproduction, and yet many of these possible sets of beliefs are not only irrational but false.

For example, a prehistoric hominid might really want to cuddle with a tiger, and he might believe that the best way to get a tiger to cuddle with you is to run away and hide in a cave whenever you see one. Of course, the beliefs of our prehistoric hominid are false, but they are conducive to behavior that has survival value. We are in the same situation, if naturalism is true, with respect to the trustworthiness of our cognitive faculties. We have reason to mistrust our beliefs, including our belief that naturalism is true, if naturalism is in fact true. This is because our beliefs have been selected for insofar as they are conducive to survival and reproduction, rather than for their truth value.

However, on a theistic worldview, we have reason to trust our cognitive processes. If God is good, and wants us to know the truth about reality, then God would give us reliable cognitive mechanisms that enable us to represent the world as it really is, at least to a significant degree. So, while the debate about faith and reason continues, there is a solid argument that reason is not at home in a naturalistic world. Reason, rather, finds its home most naturally in a theistic worldview.

I agree with the point, but I don't think it's a valid rebuttal or argument for choice.

One is just putting forward a combination of biology and environment in which rational thinking and knowledge can flourish, as opposed to a biology and environment in which these are severaly limitied.

So, they basically fall within the argument of "You don't choose".

The solution is simply accepting we have no free will. Which ought be liberating, because it implies nothing you do is random. All is because of a causal reason of biology and environment. You seem to make choices, but you don't really, you just become 'aware' of them after your biological and environmental computer has set the course. So it ought not limit or free you any more than you are and ought make no difference in how you feel in control, knowing that you aren't.

This information alone can (or ought?) probably be an environmental factor to make you atheist. :-)

If you read the article I enclosed, then by now you should now I agree with you more than with the article. What means (if I'm not clear enough) that I don't completely agree with this article. What happened is I read it half way, and I thought I was agreeing when I was actually disagreeing with the conclusion. You and me, think the same way. If you haven't read my point of view, please take a couple seconds to read my article and leave a comment:

While this exchange can be interesting (choice or no-choice... free will or determinism), the fact is that the concepts of free will and choice are fundamentally too simplistic. Making claims that anyone can "freely" chose on any topic is so fraught with logical holes and counter evidence we should probably just toss the words "choice" and "free-will" into the trash heap. Silly pedantic arguments all....

Not so much. If through fMRI you know for sure that decision-making is made in areas non associative (orbito-frontal prefrontal cortex and ventro-medial prefrontal cortex) and then those decisions transmitted to the areas in the brain where consciousness occurs (associative areas) you have to know for sure that you can only find out about the decisions your brain has made without your consent. Your brain makes the decisions in areas you have no conscious access to and THEN it communicates those decisions to you so you can perform them.

There is not room to go into this and as well I am certain the CIA would not care to have me reveal experiaments done in 1969 using common chemicals and hormones along with several types of fear that were retained through the use of what we call coercive persuasion (brainwashing)and the social needs that we develop in peer groups.

We showed that brainwashing that normally can be accomplished on (I don't have the stats avail) about 68% of the subjects within several months, and be expected to last until the immediate peer social interactions no longer exist to diminish slowly, on it's own, changes dramatically with specific thought induction and the correct (actors) immediate peer associations on captive subjects. Pardon me if I have misspelled and forgotten some, this is hardly a dissertation or an article, but simply a post.

In secret experiaments as a pre-doc, my group was able to assure virtually ALL subjects would beleive that I was an alien from a far away planet though I did nothing or claimed nothing, other than I was from planet something or other 4oo light years from earth.

Our theory was arrived from a study I did on animals while considering the unshakable religious view points of some. How are these connected? Consider that animals, once frightened of something, will never lose that fear. No, not ever. Fear is a firm motivator. Religion utilized fear as a major component in the Christian religion, and the Christian leaders have had thousands of years to work on the development of simply exceptional brainwashing techniques. Yes, fear is a prime componant.

Considering the two, I thought that certain brain components, such as the transmitter chemical as well as potassium migh be responsibe for cementing neurological pathways that make fear work so well. I was not exactly correct, but soon discovered what was happening and was able to duplicate it.

I proved that fear, in humans as it is in animals, is much like pain. Consider that pain, while horrible, has no memory. Think about that. You could be tortured horribly for a week, and later, regardless of choice, you cannot feel thta pain again. It is additionally realized that developing that ability is highly unlikely. Why? Because we do not, and animals don't either, go through life in a state of fear. Actually, we do, and animals do, but fear is hidden much as old moments of excrutuiating pain is hidden. If you are a dancer or a football player, and you make a certain move, say with a limb poorly position, and suffer for that, you will ALWAYS be aware of doing it again.

You will not realize it, but you will be. However, you will not consciously be aware of it. A chemical hides this from us. I should not say more as I have been warned by some very high ranking people. This could be a very important military instrument, poorly used by any country or person.

So, and this takes little thinking to comprehend that the Christian religion has developed highly effective forms of coercive persuasion, backed it with social fears (denial of acceptance) that are highly important to a developing brain, Much more so than adult brains or those beyond the age of about 25.

Thus by introducing huge, incredibly frighting concepts to a child during the formative years, before the corpus callosus thickens, and before the hippocampus makes strong connections with the frontal area where more judgemental thinking develops along with abilities to comprehend fears more clearly. So, the early fears, like animals, will remain with tremendoous strength, however, like pain, we cannot easily recall them. They exist, but are hidden. They arise, not as a deterrant to action, but as a concern that will not allow us to easily utilize the same levels of cognitive thinking that someone who did not initially develop a "hidden" fear.

Thi9s may help to explain the ease with which we follow any religion in onbe way. And that is to realize that we may all have a have a hidden fear that works to provide us our need to group. We all do this, almost to 98%. It may be a portion of the brain that will become altered through the evolutionary changes that come through slow processes,

Sorry i cannot be more cpomplete. As you can see, this is a very deep subject and much writing is required to bring it to light. I hope many of you can comprehend this from the litte I provided. Again, I apoligize for ther mistyping. I did not proof this and i type rapidly with these huge fingers that commonly hit several keys at once.

I hope it is time for other behavorial scientists to look into this. There are some incredible duisciveries, that are very exciting but some valid restraints as it can certainly be considered a weapon of mass destruction, much as the Christian religion served the kings looking to fill the ranks of armies in the Bronze and iron ages.

My apologies, I cannot reveal some things. I got in trouble for this some 42 years ago. I suspect we are more intelligent and somewhat less reactive by now, but are we less enough? I wouldn't think so.

I quite disagree with what I read in the first 3 paragraphs and stopped there to post my comment. While your comments are true, they are true for you and anyone who "believes" they can not choose their beliefs!
It takes a certain level of insanity but speaking and thinking are not (in my opinion) taught to us. Thinking about the past - speaking is to describe your future - say it like its true and you can find truth in anything said. Belief is 'based on what you know' - the only thing we should believe we truly know ...is that we can never know everything about anything - new knowledge leads to new belief.
Our gift to ourselves is the freedom to believe anything - say it with conviction enough - and see reality. Think about the past = speak the future - speech is the power of creation.

Belief is NOT based on what we know. When we KNOW something, belief becomes unnecessary. The very reason we believe is because we don't know. Once we know, it's no longer a belief. It is then considered knowledge/fact.

And despite your belief that our inability to choose what we believe is subjective, the evidence that we are ALL incapable of choosing our beliefs is quite overwhelming.

We do not and cannot choose what we believe. Plain and simple. And this has been known for centuries.

Believing is the opposite of knowing. Some, indeed many things are unknowable and hence unprovable. Knowing that something is unknowable we are free, nevertheless, to choose to believe it because by so doing we get something in return - e.g. inner peace.

By what objective criteria or argument could unrequited Love be proved? Does it need proof?

Rather than struggle to believe an unknowable we can consciously take a 'leap of faith' and liberate ourselves from further futile reasoning. We can resolve all arguments for and against the existence of God by consciously relinquishing the need to know. Perhaps that's a form of surrender.